A skeptical and/or sarcastic "Oooh?" is what I'm envisioning escaping from the mouths of the majority of anyone who reads the topic title here. I can't blame you. Saying that the idea of God can be scientifically "defined' is at first glance ridiculous if not absolutely arrogant. So where would I even begin to build on this?

Keep in mind that I'm stating all of this as a non-religious (and by some standards, an anti-religious) Deist.

First, let's start with my personal expansion of the cosmological argument so that we might even begin to establish God as a logical and scientific concept rather than just a matter of faith in the first. This part is more or less for the Atheists and Agnostics. It's also to temporarily restrict the requisites for what constitutes a Deity for the sake of this discussion and strip away that which is merely religious pragmatism.

[As an additional quip as to why God or a first cause does not need a cause within itself, we take into mind that normal causation (though paradoxical due to the entirety of the argument I will present) is what we deem natural. That which is supernatural supersedes the bounds of nature and thus by definition is not bound by causality in full.]

Expanding on what wikipedia says though and in rebuttal to Stephen Hawking's "Turtles all the way down" criticism, I'd like to bring us to the forefront of studies in causation and some of the mathematical theory involved. By observation, one may note that (in an extremely simplified explanation) causes are rarely linear in propagation of effects. They are more often than not, expansive in a fractal manner, despite the nodal contractions for some events. Thus by mathematical regression and evidence gathered by the Hubble Telescope suggesting an expanding universe (and more evidence thereof for an expanding model of causation) radiating from one point we come to the idea of a singular cause.

How of course do we come up with the idea that it must have caused itself then? We apply differentiation along with the idea that an event is a forced positive and an understanding that there is no such thing as a negative event. Note that the causation does not escape the scope of mathematical predictability and without going into too much detail hereafter we find that regression past the singular event can not yield an infinite series of preceding singular events. Thus forcing the idea of a cause that must have caused itself. Referring back to my argument phrased in brackets about what constitutes supernatural and we can draw the idea of God.

So we get from this at the minimum that God is the self-causing event/entity which began the universe.

Now we move onto quantum physics. Where might we have seen events that cause themselves (at least events we cannot pin a cause within our current limited understanding and in my opinion isn't ever going to) in observation? Well let's try in a vacuum where virtual matter seems to pop in and out of existence. Outside of a vacuum we have numerous other unknowns such as Quantum Synchronization phenomena (something that is by and large uncausable). So it would seem that inducing the existence of something and remote causation are beyond our means perhaps. However, they have an observable place in the universe. These phenomena have no limitation as to where they may generate either. Perhaps such events are in fact expressions of God as they are effectively events that are self-caused.

Now we move onto a more isolated application of science and also to something that would seem to be the epitome of self-causation within philosophy, Free Will.

Now for the most part, we understand that humans and other animals are largely electro/biochemical computers through nervous systems.

For now, we'll focus on humans. As with all computers, any anomalous input, such as electromagnetic pulses, can tamper with our operation. Quantum phenomena can have the same effect. We create this argument by starting with a related tangent. Through EEG we can read brain activity non-invasively. Other scientific studies have shown we produce an overall particle frequency field during our daily operation. Within that frequency field minor anomalies can set off other chain reactions. Along with EMPs, radio frequencies and microwaves have been shown to effect electronics. The more complex a system is, the more sensitive it is. The human brain then is likely susceptible to being manipulated externally by particle anomalies that fall under the umbrella of being uncaused events.

Now, we as a society have always mused upon the idea of Free Will and whether or not it exists. What if my previous statements provide a scientific explanation as to where Free Will would be sourced? And here's another fun thing: by this line of thinking our acts of free will are one and the same with God (no, not caused by God, or manipulated by it, but rather the very expression of it).

One can also consider the mass application of this line of thinking to explain how religions of the world define spirits and the afterlife and such. Afterimages of one's frequency field could have a particularly high level of integrity and effectively legitimize what have been reported as ghost sightings and haunting. Miracles and abilities akin to psionics could coalesce with a high degree of induced quantum synchronization through "free will."

So perhaps religion didn't get it ALL wrong after all. It just never reverse engineered the implications of their beliefs as effectively as it needed to in order to avoid dogmatic excess.

Anyways, there's my tediously long wall-of-text lecture. Have fun with it oh and referring to the arrogance that it may take to even dare to define God, I win the internetz, ggkthxbai!

Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. Marcus Aurelius

[As an additional quip as to why God or a first cause does not need a cause within itself, we take into mind that normal causation (though paradoxical due to the entirety of the argument I will present) is what we deem natural. That which is supernatural supersedes the bounds of nature and thus by definition is not bound by causality in full.]

Simply asserting that doesn't make it so. As you need this supposition for your argument, I have to say it fails here.

Simply asserting that doesn't make it so. As you need this supposition for your argument, I have to say it fails here.

It's an assertion of a DEFINITION. For a Deity to be what we consider to be Deity it needs to be unbound by scientific constraints. It would be omnipotent, omnipresent, and capable of achieving what we deem to be impossible. Thus, the requisite for it to be supernatural.

What is nature at its basest? Causality or causal structure. What is the ultimate form of superiority over it? Self-causation, which is effectively supernatural. Even if it occurs in particle physics there is no way to induce it (otherwise it is no longer self-caused, but the results perhaps may be replicated). It is beyond our scope of control as it occurs regardless of conditions or interventions or observations.

It's an assertion of a DEFINITION. For a Deity to be what we consider to be Deity it needs to be unbound by scientific constraints. It would be omnipotent, omnipresent, and capable of achieving what we deem to be impossible. Thus, the requisite for it to be supernatural.

What is nature at its basest? Causality or causal structure. What is the ultimate form of superiority over it? Self-causation, which is effectively supernatural. Even if it occurs in particle physics there is no way to induce it (otherwise it is no longer self-caused, but the results perhaps may be replicated). It is beyond our scope of control as it occurs regardless of conditions or interventions or observations.

But not all of those properties can be ascribed to all conceptions of deity. Certainly the Abrahamaic God, but by no means other theistic beings.

But not all of those properties can be ascribed to all conceptions of deity. Certainly the Abrahamaic God, but by no means other theistic beings.

Perhaps not the necessarily the Norse or Greek Pantheons. However, when it comes to the proprietors of creation that span the range of Yahweh and Pangu and Brahma and other such beings, this rings true.

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. AristotleNever discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato.."A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson

Perhaps not the necessarily the Norse or Greek Pantheons. However, when it comes to the proprietors of creation that span the range of Yahweh and Pangu and Brahma and other such beings.

Right, its Anselm's ontological argument in a nut shell... It isn't exactly an original argument for the existence of deity. I'm not sure why the ''first cause'' has to be a God. Or, I'm just not sure why you describe the singularity as a God, or what the scientific basis is to attatch some kind of intelligence to such an event?